Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women and the second leading cause of cancer death. But this week, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reported that women do not need annual mammograms, recalling previous recommendations that women older than 18 be checked by their doctors on a yearly basis. In addition, the report advised doctors to stop telling patients to self-examine their breasts for lumps.

In lieu of this flip-flopping and somewhat confusing news, many may wonder what can be done to guard against breast cancer. So far, no alternative solutions have been given by health care professionals.

Our medical knowledge has always been a work in progress and never a guaranteed field of wisdom. For decades, doctors championed the use of vitamin supplements to prevent certain kinds of cancer. But in 2004, a British medical journal published a study claiming vitamins actually increase the risk of gastro-intestinal cancer, and proponents of supplements were quieted. For years, medical experts cautioned against consuming eggs, which were condemned for their high-cholesterol content. But the American Heart Association now assures us we can poach, boil and scramble as many eggs as we like.

The legacy of debunked medical practices is wide-sweeping and ongoing, and while easy to make light of, has sobering consequences. For instance, the prostate cancer scare of the 1990s put many men through the unnecessary discomforts of prostate-specific antigen tests and other diagnostic atrocities. But the method is now in question due to its failure to assess the level of threat the detected cancer poses. And the side effects of prostate surgery, such as incontinence and impotence, are a high price to pay if cancer turns out to be dormant.

Such consequences are difficult to avoid when new studies and developments are constantly changing the health care field. Once in a while, these changes are publicized, drawing attention to the fact. So it is with mammogram recalls, but in this case the timing of the release has produced some unsavory political ramifications.

Though the Obama administration has shied away from the task force’s report, the GOP is determined to milk it for all it is worth.

“I mean, let the rationing begin. This is what happens when bureaucrats make your health care decisions,” said Rep. David Camp, R-Mich., the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Others agree with Camp and are decrying what they believe is the first step toward medical rationing. Apparently, reductions in federally approved mammogram frequency will be grounds for insurance companies to begin withholding payments on claims.

The chief concern here is that the Democratic Party will begin its calculated medical cutbacks by targeting women’s reproductive health. It is hard to take this claim seriously, given House Republicans’ support of restrictions on abortion funding within health care reform legislation. Hypocrisy and partisan beliefs aside, the idea that the federal government is so bankrupt it cannot afford to pay for annual mammograms is delightfully laughable.

But if health care reform opponents can twist mammogram recalls one way, those in favor of reform can surely twist it another. In an attempt to alleviate partisan dissent, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the report would not impact health care reform or compromise women’s health.

As for the medical perspective, the malleable nature of medical knowledge makes the private sector prone to backtracking and misguided practice. Because the best doctors need advice from experts about when to prod their patients’ breasts, the average American citizen is not going to be well-informed on health issues.

Health care reform may be a step toward regulating the medical field, but if politicization is what it takes to elevate women’s health in the public forum, perhaps the vitriol is justified.